Not PC

Saturday, February 13, 2010

I’m off!

Yes, my droogs, the rumours are true. The good news for you is: I’m heading away. The bad news: I’m coming back.

But fear not fearless followers of pithy prose and liberty links. While I’m away, not writing home every day, I’ve lined up a stellar cast of stalwarts to host you here at NOT PC. There’ll be guest posts aplenty, of a quality so high that not only will you not even miss me, you’ll likely never want to have me back.

And as you can see, some of the invitees are so keen they’ve started posting already. (Onya, boys.)

So see you later. I’m looking forward to diving into the warm waters of Whangaumu Bay, near Tutukaka, and into a stack of books. Mind you, I think I might have overdone the pile just a little. Again.

Her outrage is well placed, though she doesn't point out that even if it resulted in zero fraud and the money went for exactly 'the right things', it would still be the wrong thing to do. That it is the wrong thing is suggested by Obama's recent statement on the subject: "What I won't consider is doing nothing in the face of a lot of hardship across the country."

To repeat for — what is it now? — the hundredth time: that's exactly what is wrong with his entire approach to governing. He should take his cues not from FDR but from Coolidge, who understood the value of the Federal government doing nothing in the face of economic hardship.

(Coolidge was, by the way, roundly mocked for it by the leftist columnist Walter Lippmann, who later said to FDR: "The situation is critical, Franklin. You may have no alternative but to assume dictatorial powers.")

Or, better still, Obama should listen to James Madison who said (when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees),

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” [4 Annals of Congress 179, 1794]

Now, in theory, the 'jobs' bill isn't charity. More accurately, it's the same absurd Keynesian-inspired approach that has failed time and again. (Interestingly, Allan Meltzer of Carnegie Mellon suggests that Obama doesn't even have Keynes right. But never mind that now.) But the idea behind it is the same: that the Federal government should step in to 'help' when private business 'isn't doing enough.'

It should be no surprise that the idea has failed whenever it's been tried, because when the Federal government does nothing outside what it is supposed to do, the citizens have the freedom to do what they think best.

When they have that, they typically do far from nothing — and the something they do is far preferable than anything Obama will ever do. More importantly, they don't violate the rights of everyone in the country when they do it.

If Obama really wanted to 'do something' helpful, he could encourage Congress to begin repealing Sarbanes-Oxley, eliminating capital gains taxes, gutting the EPA, phasing out Social Security, and Medicare, and in general shaving the leviathan down to bare Constitutional bones. Not surprisingly, in those areas — and thousands more — Obama would prefer to do nothing.

[Cross-posted at Shaving Leviathan where I hope you'll join me daily for more provocative commentary on contemporary culture and politics.]

Friday, February 12, 2010

What happened to small government, Mr English?

Hi, I'm Mark Hubbard, and I've got a guest spot here at NOT PC this week while Peter is away. I'll use it now to vent on two topics that have arisen today.

1. This government doesn't understand small government, despite electioneering on it.

The most frightening statistic I learned last year was this (and this before the recession really started to bite, with the private sector layoffs resulting from it): In New Zealand there were 1.75 million people working in the wealth-creating private sector. 1.75 million people having to pay the tax, alongside corporates, to pay for the livelihoods of 1.75 million wealth-destroying bureaucrats in the State sector, beneficiaries and retirees.

That's one for one, and that's a huge Nanny State. Put another way, there were 1.75 million private sector wealth creators having to carry a population of 4.13 million.

Quite apart from the philosophical issues surrounding freedom of the individual, and his or her woebegone pursuit of happiness in a State of this size, mathematically this state of affairs is simply not possible, hence even at that stage, the country was having to borrow a quarter of billion dollars per week (and guess who has to pay the interest and principle tab on that).

So can libertarians and freedom lovers take any heart from Bill English's comments this week on restraining the public sector? No, of course not: Bill's speech is as slippery as temporarily signing yourself out of your own Family Trust in order to gain an advantage at the cost of the taxpayer.

"Restraint on the public sector has not even started properly yet, Finance Minister Bill English told MPs today. Appearing before Parliament's finance and expenditure select committee, Mr English said government departments had been told before Christmas what sort of increase in their baseline budget they would get in the 2010 Budget. That is earlier than usual: such moves are usually made early in the new year. And most are getting a nil increase he told MPs, although 'three or four are getting some extra.' He did not say which."

Pathetic. There is no reduction of the State even envisaged in this gutless proclamation. It's past the time we needed such 'restraint', this merely means, at best, containment from Nanny's continued growth, keeping her at her current revoltingly obese size, and not even that: some departments are still to get more!

It's way too late for containment, the size of Nanny State must be slashed, and ruthlessly: small government, that's what National stands for, and we have the opposite of that. Bill English should be announcing on 20 May that one in three bureaucrats must go find a real job, with a commitment to further reductions after that. And that the number of government departments, DHB's, and all rest will be reduced from over sixty five to at the most seven. Seven Bill says, why, that's impossible! Sorry Bill, Switzerland, with a population bigger than New Zealand, has just seven government departments. So in the May budget, lets aim for that. Think of the tax cuts we could have on such a reduction, and no need to increase GST, or attack mom and dad's investment in property.

"Citing financial worries, the State of Arizona has backed out of a broad regional effort to limit greenhouse gas emissions in the West through a cap-and-trade system.
In an executive order issued last week, Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, said a cap-and-trade system ­ which would impose mandatory caps on emissions and allow pollution credits to be traded among companies ­ would cripple Arizona's economy."

Note those last words: "would cripple Arizona's economy."

And yet New Zealand's ETS is still legislated to start July 1 this year, with no political will to change it, despite the Warmists' argument melting quicker than the polar ice cap, which is not melting at all. So on top of GST increases, add increased energy charges to your personal budgets. For a country where households are much more indebted as a percentage of disposable income than the United States this government is set to make the lives of hard working individuals in New Zealand even more uncomfortable.

Peter Garrett. Rock star turned Australian cabinet minister, turned soon-to-be-ex-minister. How can he sleep while their roofs are burning? Read Heater Garrett

“We see with interest that Tariana Turia understands that the Foreshore and Seabed issue can only be settled with an acknowledgement of property rights and due process through the courts. Pita Sharples, it seems prefers the so called ‘communist solution.’ ”Dr Sharples said Maori did not have a concept of ownership prior to Pakeha arriving in New Zealand. . . ” Very interesting. Very interesting indeed.Tariana Turia sound on property rights – ROAR PRAWN

The Hand MIrror offers a timely reminder: “Just in case you didn't know, and I'm going to write this nice and big now: Sensing Murder has never solved any murders. That is all.” True story. A timely reminder – HAND MIRROR

Roger Douglas writes the speech that Phil Goff should have delivered this week. It’s, well, for the guy who introduced and then raised GST, it’s really bloody good. It begins:

“The most general apology that I need to make on behalf of the Labour Party is for confusing the intention of a policy with the outcomes it produces. I am sorry for thinking that the mere intention of helping those who were least well off actually did help them. I have now come to realise that, more often than not, those most harmed by a policy are those it was usually intended to help. “First, let me apologise to the thousands of young people who have lost their jobs because of our support for abolishing the youth minimum wage. . . ”

Today could be a pivotal day in Iran. It “marks the 31st anniversary of the coalescing of Iran’s Islamist revolution. But on this deeply symbolic day, which Tehran usually spends glorifying its militant, tyrannical rule, millions of Iranian citizens will likely attempt another show of mass defiance and repudiation of the regime.” Pivotal day in Iran – VOICES OF REASON

“The government has released a series of aerial photographs of the September 11, 2001, Islamic terrorist attack on America. The photo set, appropriately presented and captioned by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) here, taken from a helicopter by Greg Semendinger of the New York City Police Department (NYPD), was made available to the public following an ABC News Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) filing. The record of this atrocity, currently the worst attack in U.S. history, speaks for itself.” New Photographs of 9/11

Does even Mr. Obama listen to his speeches? The public does - at least to this extent: They understand that when he's attacking the tired old Washington games, he's just playing the game, but when he's proposing the tired old Washington solutions, he means it. That's the only Barack Obama on offer.”- Mark Steyn, ‘Talking the Talk’

"The problem with viewing the role of parents as primarily one of ‘molding’ the child is that sometimes the ‘clay’ has other ideas, due to temperament traits and free will.” It’s that damned free will again! The X Factor in Parenting - RATIONAL JEN

Caught up with all the news on ClimateGate? There’s loads more you know. AfricaGate, NZGate, Codegate, Stationgate . . . The wheels are falling of the global warming “consensus,” and the shambles is breaking out everywhere. Someone by the name of Schiller Thurkettle offers a handy summary of all the recent nails going into the IPCC’s coffin. (A handy surname for a killer, Thurkettle, if anyone remembers his Len Deighton.) ClimateGate Fallout, comment – SCHILLER THURKETTLE

“The Australian ETS is dead, and with it the hopes of Australian power hungry super statists. Two factors will have to unite to revive the dead beast . . . ” The Australian ETS is dead... - MICKY’S MUSES

Meanwhile, the US mainstream media starts to notice something’s going on with the so-called climate scientists that isn’t all it should be. [Hat tip Marcus B]

Brit humorist Chris Morris pokes fun at Islamist terrorists in a new film. “You don’t have to mock Islamic beliefs to make a joke out of someone who wants to run the world under sharia law but can’t apply it in his own home because his wife won’t let him.”

The choices are 20 percent unemployment for six months, or 10 percent unemployment for three years. . .”- Friedrich Hayek in 1982, counselling balancing budgets and ending credit inflation as a means by which to end that crisis swiftly.

“The bounce in the growth momentum of both real and nominal GDP is due to the Fed's massive money expansion. It is an illusion. Neither the Fed nor the government can grow the economy.” So just in case you were wondering . . . This Depression is Not Over – Frank Shostak, MISES DAILY

“Most economists, including yours truly, have been saying that the huge budget deficits the country is running will result in inflation. So, where's the inflation? Inflation normally lags changes in the growth of the money supply by one to two years. The big monetary expansion took place in the last half of 2008. So if the economy follows past trends, one would expect to see growing inflation by the latter part of this year. “There are several reasons why inflation does not occur simultaneously with a sudden growth in the money supply…” Where Is the Inflation? – Richard Rahn

“The fiscal crisis in Greece is fascinating political theater, in part because the Balkan nation is a leading indicator for what will probably happen in many other countries. The most puzzling feature of the crisis is the assumption in other European capitals, discussed in the BBC article below, that a Greek default is the worst possible result. It certainly would not be good news, especially for investors who thought it was safe to lend money to the government, but there are several reasons why the long-term pain resulting from a bailout would be even worse. . . ” Maybe Greece Should Go Bankrupt – Daniel J. Mitchell

We are witnessing the tragic spectacle of the deficit-ridden rescuing the bankrupt with an outpouring of more … red ink—and the taxpayer is left holding the bag.… By extending credit to countries beyond their ability to repay, the final bankruptcy is worse…. There is no point to a bailout that increases world debt when the problem is too much indebtedness already. Countries are in trouble because they cannot service their current obligations. The strain on them is not eased by a bailout that loads them up with more.”- Former US Secretary of the Treasury, WIlliam E. Simon, writing as if yesterday, instead of in the Wall Street Journal in 1983.

“Wall Street analysts and financial pundits are struggling with a ‘conundrum’…. Retail sales posted an unexpected increase of 3.3 percent in January compared to a year earlier. Furthermore, labor productivity rose a seasonally adjusted 6.2 percent in the fourth quarter of 2009, exceeding expectations and implying a fall in per unit labor costs. “Yet, on the same day as these statistics were released, an unanticipated and substantial rise of U.S. jobless claims was reported. The concurrence of these data presented the conundrum: Why are businesses not taking advantage of their rising sales and declining labor costs to increase employment and output and earn higher profits? “The answer, as Mises told us, is that entrepreneurs and workers only belatedly and painfully free themselves from the false and frenzied optimism fostered by the inflationary boom, especially one that turns into a runaway bubble. Once people finally do recover a sober view of reality, a deep and abiding pessimism sets in and makes entrepreneurs especially wary of embarking on new and seemingly profitable ventures. As Mises explained it . . . ” Read on : Mises Solves Current "Conundrum"--60 Years in Advance

A fascinating essay here by the son of architect Richard Neutra (the designer of the house in which Ayn Rand wrote the Fountainhead screenplay), which examines the “internal architecture” of his legendary father through a 1958 Berkeley psychological study. [Hat tip Prairie Mod] Neutra Territory - DWELL.COM

“Every investment prospectus warns that ‘past performance is no guarantee of future results.’ But suppose that an investment professional's record contains nothing but losses, of failed prediction after failed prediction. Who would still entrust that investor with his money? “Yet, in public policy there is one group with a dismal track record that Americans never seem to tire of supporting. We invest heavily in its spurious predictions, suffer devastating losses, and react by investing even more, never seeming to learn from the experience. The group I’m talking about is the environmentalist movement. . . ” No More Green Guilt – Keith Lockitch

Town planners in Denver are saying “Everybody Must Get Zoned.” “At 639 pages, the old zoning code was considered horribly complicated and cumbersome. Weighing in at 730 pages, not including 76 neighborhood maps and six Overlay District maps, the new zoning code is being called an improvement. It is a control-freak fantasy, with detailed rules for every aspect of city life.” Everybody must get zoned: Kenny Be looks at Denver's new zoning rules

Was the "pioneer spirit" the “product of faith." Hell no! “The "can-do pioneering spirit" is the product of reason, not faith. Whence can-do?

How about some practical ethics? "With Ayn Rand's Benevolent Universe premise as a starting point, Tod discusses various ways to answer one of the tough questions: What Should I Do With My Life?" How to Decide What You Should Do With Your Life – A BLOG BY TOD

Sarah Palin speaking to 600 “Tea Party Nation” people creates a national media frenzy. Asks Tea Party Patriots, an organization with a reach of millions of members and over 1,000 voluntarily affiliated tea party and 912 local groups: “WHY WOULD 600 PEOPLE AT A RALLY CREATE A MEDIA FREENZY?” Says The New Clarion: “I’m convinced that this event was covered to designate the Tea Party movement as a right wing Republican movement. I doubt it will work because the parties I attended last year were mostly independent voters with some Repubs and Dems as well. But they may get some mileage out of it. Stay tuned.” Hijacking the Tea Party Movement? - THE NEW CLARION

Thrutch reckons this interview interview with Mark Pincus, founder and chief executive of Zynga, a provider of online social games, is a great condensation of the principles of rational management. Are You a C.E.O. of Something? – CORNER OFFICE

Another legacy of Sue Bradford: “Sue Bradford's gift to the nation is to deny a job to some 12,000 young people, a population roughly equivalent to the labour force of Horowhenua or Thames-Coromandel, and 80% of those employed in the Queenstown-Lakes district.”Unempoyment Roundup – ROGER KERR

Courtesy of Spare Room, “British comedians take aim at dead celebrities and other sacred cows. Any too much for you? (NSFW and please don’t watch if you’re easily offended)”

And finally, here’s George Gershwin’s Rhapsody in Blue (click on part 2 once it finishes). Have a great weekend.

Thursday, February 11, 2010

“The Sky Above” - David Knowles

“Taxi!”

The more things change, the more statist stupidity stays the same. As if she were writing yesterday, instead of in December ‘08, allow me to reprise a short post the late Anna Woolf wrote when she was still very much alive and kicking about the swift fall from grace of a former uni acquaintance.

Monday, 8 December 2008

Steven Joyce goes left

Taxi security reviewed after killing "Transport Minister Steven Joyce will review the use of distress buttons, video cameras and safety screens to separate drivers and passengers." Does the government have rules on the use of buttons, cameras and screens? If they do have these rules then the only thing Joyce needs to do is get rid of them. But let's presume that they rules don't exist - why is the government wasting time and resources on this matter - surely it is the responsibility of the taxi driver what security he would like. Just like they decide if they are going to have a Navman or CD player or air freshener. Just like I decided to have an alarm system installed in my home - the neighbour didn't and was burgled on the weekend - she will now install an alarm. Or is Joyce thinking about using our money to pay for taxi security? Please no - that would be a major slide down for this successful entrepreneur. Didn't take long.

LAST NIGHT JEANETTE FITZSIMONS brought down the hemp curtain on her thirteen-year Parliamentary career. When an MP gives their valedictory speech, all their colleagues and the whole commentariat comes out in force to review their career.

But I’m not going to do that now. No more than I did last week. Instead, what I want to review (just briefly) is the ‘career’ of the Party with whom she was first associated.

Back in the early seventies there was a political party called the Values Party. (“She likes Women’s Lib and the Values Party. . . ”) Non-threatening, non-violent and never any hope of winning a Parliamentary seat, they ran a programme based around saving the whales and the Tangata Whenua; around multiculturalism and mediocrity; promoting state support of everything except the production that would pay for it; attacking the “obsessions” with competition, money and personal gratification and promoting instead the spiritualism of sacrifice and “sustainability”—long, long before any of these ideas were politically fashionable. They were the original politically correct “rebels.” And they made them fashionable.

Tripping over their sandals, banging their head on their wind chimes, reeking of patchouli and clad in the inevitable tie-died macrame, at the the time they only appeared to be a threat to themselves, but a careful review of the Values Party programme would show that the Values Party have been one of the most successful parties of the last four decades. They never got an MP within a hippie’s roar of Parliament, but just take a look at the core Values programme (conveniently laid out for us by Claire Browning). and review for a moment how the ideas they brought to the fringes of the political table four decades ago are now front and centre in so much of what passes for political debate today:

Politics -- MMP, and open government, including freedom of information, now given effect by the Official Information Act. International relations -- an independent foreign affairs stance (eg, ANZUS withdrawal), an anti-nuclear, nuclear-free stance, anti-apartheid in sport. Law -- New Zealand’s highest court should be a New Zealand court not the Privy Council, Fair Trading and Consumer Guarantees policies. Race relations and status of Maori -- strengthening Maori cultural identity and tino rangatiratanga, a Maori Minister of Maori Affairs. Status of women -- a suite of policies to remove discrimination and gender bias against women in employment, healthcare, public participation (eg, jury service), and in the home (eg, deploring gender stereotypes, and proposing matrimonial property reform). Individual responsibility for moral behaviour -- eg, homosexual law reform. Immigration -- a cautious multi-racial population-replacement immigration policy (as opposed to Eurocentric).

The foundation planks of the Values’ manifesto gave birth to the nostrums of ecological collapse due to climate change; to the soft fascism of political correctness and the collectivism of failure; to the mush of multiculturalism and the mainstreaming of “minorities”; to the “politics of enough” and a “redistributive philosophy” in which the state would recover and share around the wealth of “the excessively greedy or fortunate”; to anti-capitalist assaults on consumerism and industry; to the greening of socialism and the throttling of capitalism--and they brought these all to the mainstream. They didn’t just gave birth to the Greens, they gave birth (almost unobserved by the mainstream) to the political agenda of the last forty years.

What was wildly “way out, man” then is just mainstream and taken for granted today. That’s the extent of their victory.

THE VALUES PARTY PROGRAMME was so wildly successful because their members, and many former members, all understood they were involved in a battle of ideas—at a time when most of their opponents would barely be said to have an original idea between them. And they had patience. They knew that to capture the mainstream they had to capture the young—and that to capture the young they had to capture the education system, so they could tell those youngsters how to behave.

And so they did. And then those youngsters grew up, and took with them those ideas they’d imbibed when their brains were still tender. It was always a battle of ideas—a battle in which they still give no quarter.

As Ayn Rand put it, “a political battle is merely a skirmish fought with muskets; whereas a philosophical battle is a nuclear war." I very much doubt whether Ms Fitzsimons would ever put it quite like that, but she would be one of the few in the present Parliament who would understand.

Because, you see, you could always smell the ideological uranium on Fitzsimons’ breath. You could always smell it on her colleagues. Which is why the Values Party won the nuclear war.

They won it because, for the most part, while their opponents were fussing about with the tactical weapons of pragmatism and politics—by refusing to confront the fact that bad ideas can only be fought by better ideas—the strategic nuclear weapons launched by the Values alumni were already having their victories. While their opponents were figuring out the tactics of political musketry, the Values’ troops were (in the words of Chris Knox’s song) preparing everyone to be “told exactly how to behave.” Not for them fussing about with poll numbers, seats and cabinet rankings. They always knew that in the end it didn’t really matter how many MPs you sent to parliament, but how many ideas.

'Brick Country House' - Mies van der Rohe, 1923

This wonderfully free-flowing 1923 'pinwheel' plan for a country house project by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe combines elements of Frank Lloyd Wright, De Stijl Art (see below left for example from 1918), Berlage and Malevich.

The plan itself is almost pure abstraction. Rather than cutting up space into little boxes, walls thrust out into the landscape--almost as Frank Lloyd Wright first had them do a generation earlier--only here in this house they are simpler and the whole composition less 'centred'; they 'hold' space rather than 'grasp' it, and being less ordered their reach is less centrifugal, and the thrust correspondingly less.

The elevations themselves are less successful -- Mies was still working out how to roof such a plan (something he worked out with his 'floating roof' of the Barcelona Pavilion) -- but it's fair to say that with this floor plan a new thing was brought into the world.

UPDATE 2: For youngsters reading this wondering about the phrase “Read my lips,” it refers to one of history’s top ten most unfortunate political one-liners—the one that lost George Bush Sr. his second presidential election, i.e., “Read my lips: No new taxes”:

“That pledge was the centerpiece of Bush's acceptance address, written by speechwriter Peggy Noonan, for his party's nomination at the 1988 Republican National Convention. It was a strong, decisive, bold statement, and you don't need a history degree to see where this is going. . . Bush raised taxes. His words were used against him by then-Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton in a devastating attack ad during the 1992 presidential campaign.”

Speaking of which:

I wouldn’t be surprised if, before the day is out, something similar (but with John Key instead of the hapless Bush I) will be winging its way virally round the web.

UPDATE 3: Key answers in Parliament. Apparently it depends on the meaning of the word “not.” Well, almost.

“National leader John Key said told a press conference this morning that if National is elected and does a ‘half decent job’ at growing the economy, then increasing GST and the top tax rate will not be necessary.”

“With the Nats now backing away from previous statements that a rise in GST is "not on the agenda" and is "not our policy", it appears the two parties the Nats need to govern need to make clear what their policies are. . . “Being seen to support an increase in the price of everything to offset tax cuts that may be seen to be for those on higher incomes could cost the Maori Party dearly. “However what about ACT? . . . “The test is simple - is ACT a party that people voted for so that government could cut one tax but increase another?

The Corpseman-in-Chief [updated]

Heading over to the Scoop website this morning to check out all the talk about yesterday’s non-event, I was amused to discover that this SOLO Press Release outrated all the talk about John Boy’s Big Day:

Corpseman-in-Chief

With each new long, drawn out, and substantively empty speech, President Obama's silver tongue has revealed a brain of mush. Most recently, Obama referred to a Navy corpsman as "corpseman", since apparently the teleprompter has not yet incorporated pronunciations phonetically for Dear Leader. Nevertheless, I found the term a wonderfully symbolic moniker for the president himself, and not just applied to his intellectual vacuity, but rather to the entirety of his methods and goals. . .

Did somebody say something? [with ongoing updates]

He shouldn't have wasted his time. “National is truly back to form, the conservative do-nothing tinker party. “Unless voters demand it, the next serious chance for uplifting New Zealand will come with the next serious economic crisis. That wont be for another generation. “There will be ever increasing government waste from picking losers; mediocre centrally-planned and provided education and healthcare; a continued growing underclass of hopelessness; and a largely low value commodity based economy struggling to get market access to a world that ignores it. “Not enough to encourage me to return to the highly taxed, low value currency backwater when there are opportunities in the US and Europe. “There is nothing in this to remotely encourage me to return.”

Visible Hand in Economics “There was nothing in the speech . . . “I’ve heard rumours they would change GST in October. Increasing GST just before Christmas, with no compensation, and coming out of a recession with elevated unemployment is what I would term moronic. As a result, it can’t be ruled out. . . “I heard today that we were going to hear about ‘significant changes to the tax system,’ something about a ‘step change.’ Other than the possibility of a slight shift from income to consumption taxes there was nothing in this speech. To be honest, it makes me laugh a little.”

NBR: “If the Government goes ahead with its entire tax reform package it will be able to cut the top rate of personal tax, corporate tax and trust tax to 30 percent, as well as creating a tax free earnings threshold and compensating low income people for the rise in GST, a tax expert said today. “Buddle Findlay tax partner Neil Russ said there was a ‘smorgasbord of options’ that the Government could take if it raised GST to 15 percent and cut the depreciation claims on investment properties. . . ”

Bob Buckle, in the Herald, notes the small print: Buckle also found it significant that Key had only ruled out a "comprehensive" capital gains tax. "It is still distinctly possible they are thinking about some more restricted capital gains tax, such as one applying to property sold within two years or three years of buying it. . . "

Fran O’Sullivan fills in some details: “But he left property investors up in the air by failing to say exactly what measures his Government would announce. “Tax experts suggest these could involve any or all of the following options: Wiping depreciation on buildings (the Taxation Working Group estimates this could be worth $1.3 billion), putting rental losses in quarantine so they can't be offset against other income, restricting tax losses to $10,000, or, taxing all gains on residential properties after April 1, 2011. “The upshot is property investors - and prospective house buyers - were yesterday all aflutter as they played guessing games. “Some are likely to hold-off on making an acquisition until after May 20. Others will get out now in fear that property prices will take a drop after the Budget. “This is not great governance. . . “The Prime Minister subsequently cut through the confusion on Larry Williams' Newstalk ZB show by indicating the Government indeed plans to raise GST and wipe depreciation. It is also planning to reduce company tax.”

“Tax changes could hammer cost of doing business in NZ” says Connal Townsend: “The cost of doing business in New Zealand could take a hit if Victoria University’s Tax Working Group suggestions go ahead, according to some property experts. “The Property Council of New Zealand commissioned financial advisers KPMG and NZIER to produce reports about the impact of the proposed changes. “If depreciation were abolished and land taxes applied, it would have the same effect as if the productive sector’s taxes were increased, making it more expensive to do business in New Zealand, the reports found. “According to Property Council chief executive Connal Townsend, commercial property is the infrastructure of business and is fundamental to productivity, international competitiveness and growth. “’But more than 80% of commercial property is owned or occupied directly by business owners and the proposals around depreciation would be the equivalent of an effective rise in tax from 30% to 32%,’ Mr Townsend said.”

Lindsay Mitchell: “Nobody should be under any illusion that National is getting tough on welfare. They should be red-faced over these window-dressing gestures. Really. It's nothing more than 'been there, done that.’ ”

Will de Cleene: “NZ is a freaking backwater in a global recession. There's pluses and minuses to that. And John Key doesn't get it.”

UPDATE: Dodger Rugless says there should be No Tax Changes Without Spending Restraint. (If you’ll recall, however, it was Dodger Rugless who introduced the Goods and Services tax. And under Dodger Rugless, the government’s total tax take went up . . . )

UPDATE: Keith Ng writes to the DomPost: “Dear DomPost. Your headline today, in very large letters, said "$4b in tax cuts coming".People might read that, and think that there are $4b in tax cuts coming.Except that it's $4b in tax cuts, funding by $4b in tax hikes . . . ”

UPDATE: Brad Taylor: “One thing really pissed me off though: the suggestion of unspecified reforms to liquor licensing rules to address the Problem of Binge Drinking. This means that beer is likely to get more expensive and less conveniently available so the government seems like they’re doing something. Not cool, John.”

Tuesday, February 09, 2010

Fisking that “step change” [update 4]

It used to be called a “sea change.” Before that it was a “paradigm shift.” But all a “step change” really means is an admission that the way things are done isn’t working, so we have to try something new.

To put it simply, the country’s businesses have been mired in shackles, knee-capped by nannying, and hamstrung by hefty taxes. And John Boy’s solution to that is going to be . . . well, don’t hold your breath. At a time when the world’s economy is still mired in the Great Recession and none of the old nostrums are working, it’s going to be more rules and new taxes and more of the same old, same old, isn’t it.

And there are manifesto promises that were never going to be delivered, like those manifesto promises to cut back the nanny state, which it’s now clear you’ll never see from these boys, and to give you big tax cuts—which as you might recall as they’re rolled out this afternoon never ever came with the public advisory that any cuts you might see in your taxes will be balanced out by new ones. So this must be known as lying.

So amidst a sea of broken promises and a morass of spin and froth, will anything proffered this afternoon bring a “step change”? Or a “paradigm shift”? Or will it just be a shift with the ‘f’ missing? Let’s take a look this afternoon. Bernard Hickey, among others, will be live blogging the announcements as they come, and (as time permits) I’ll be fisking what I see.

Stay tuned.

UPDATE 1: Just clearing the decks here, setting the tone for this afternoon with these two quotes:

"Taxes are the price we pay for civilization” – Oliver Wendell Holmes

“Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society, since taxation represents force.” – Mark Skousen

Two competing worldviews, only one of which is correct.

Which one do you think will be taken out for a ride this afternoon?

Do you think anyone in that National caucus room, or anyone at all in the commentariat who is talking up all the new taxes, understands either the moral point above or the practical point made by Winston Churchill?

We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.”

UPDATE 2: Said John Key this morning: “I want to make sure that in my time in office I make a difference to making New Zealand a wealthier country, where our kids want to stay here.” So based on that standard . . .

UPDATE 3: As H.L. Mencken once observed,

When a new source of taxation is found it never means, in practice, that the old source is abandoned. It merely means that the politicians have two ways of milking the taxpayer where they had one before."

It appears the National Party are following that course. We have another promise of income tax cuts; and with it we have the promise of a hike in GST. We have some promise of tax relief, and the promise with it of extra spending. We have a promise of welfare “reform,” but a clear signal that the middle-class welfare reform of Welfare For Working Families (which John Boy once called “communism by stealth”) will be untouched.

If we take those two views of civilisation above, it’s clear from some the “highlights” of John Boy’s speech which is the one of which they approve.

No plan to pay off the ever-increasing debt, perhaps by reducing govt spending, but more plans to spend more--and a hike in the only tax that everybody pays.

No Capital Gains or Land Tax, but some sort of Property Tax to sweep more people into the grey ones’ net. (Remember how they promised before the election to “force” property owners to build on undeveloped land? Expect something along those lines.)

GST hiked to 15%, with some sort of change made to Income Tax to “compensate.”

No change to Welfare for For Working Families—and more taxpayers’ dollars thrown at welfare beneficiaries to “compensate” for the hike in GST.

No change to Welfare for For Working Families—but (somehow) will work out how to “compensate” WFF taxpayers on effective marginal tax rates of around 95% for the additional burden of the GST hike .

Will now pick winners in Research and Development and throw millions of taxpayers’ dollars around.

Will (somehow) free up mining and resource exploration.

Will throw billions more taxpayers’ dollars at Conservation to shut the Greens up about mining in Conservation land.

Will throw the Public Works Act at property owners getting in the way of infrastructure developments, especially those involving water storage and irrigation.

Will throw billions more taxpayers’ dollars at nationalised broadband and other infrastructure—over the next five years, that will be $25 billion plus cock-ups.

Will “reform” the welfare system to “get people back into work” (just as Lindsay Mitchell said they would), but will not be touching either the Minimum wage or Youth Rates, which are keeping so many people out of work.

Will thrown billions more dollars at education.

Says nothing at all about banning planners “ring-fencing” cities (thereby hiking up land prices) but will ban the “excessive proliferation” of liquor stores.

So much for “step change.” This looks like more of the same, only more so.

The fundamental point that must be said again and again was made by Henry Hazlitt:

The mounting burden of taxation not only undermines individual incentives to increased work and earnings, but in a score of ways discourages capital accumulation and distorts, unbalances, and shrinks production. Total real wealth and income is made smaller than it would otherwise be. On net balance there is more poverty rather than less."

Shuffling around that mounting burden does nothing for prosperity. What is necessary is removing it.

A responsible government would have done that.

That they didn’t tells you precisely how “ambitious” they really are.

UPDATE 4: Comment around the traps on what was signalled as John Boy’s “most important speech since he entered Parliament in 2002”:

Phil Goff says “it’s Alan Bollard 1, John Key 0.” Which is not far from the truth, really.

Bernard Hickey summarises the anti-climactic speech: “John Key has just sent Generations X and Y a clear message. Leave the country now.” But Bernard was hoping for swinging taxes on property owners. . .

Some quotable quotes for “Tax Reform” Day

Tax Reform. It’s what you have when you don’t have real tax cuts—when you don’t bite the bullet and cut your spending to match.

“Look, over there; it looks like a tax cut.” “And look, over there; there’s a tax hike to match.”

So another shuffling of deck chairs. Another afternoon of spin. Another day in which to think and meditate on the nature of taxation, whose “reform” is somehow supposed to make us all prosperous. Somehow.

"To steal from one person is theft. To steal from many is taxation." - Jeff Daiell

"I think coercive taxation is theft, and government has a moral duty to keep it to a minimum." - former Massachusetts Governor William Weld

"See, when the Government spends money, it creates jobs; whereas when the money is left in the hands of Taxpayers, God only knows what they do with it. Bake it into pies, probably. Anything to avoid creating jobs." - Dave Barry

“The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing.” - Jean Baptiste Colbert

"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." – Alexis De Tocqueville

"Most of the presidential candidates' economic packages involve 'tax breaks,' which is when the government, amid great fanfare, generously decides not to take quite so much of your income. In other words, these candidates are trying to buy your votes with your own money." - Dave Barry

“Taxation is just a sophisticated way of demanding money with menaces.” - Terry Pratchett

“For every benefit you receive a tax is levied.” - Ralph Waldo Emerson

"It's sad to realise that most citizens do not even notice the irony of being bribed with their own money." - Anon.

"[There are dangers in] the disposition to hunt down rich men as if they were noxious beasts." - Winston Churchill

"When Barbary Pirates demand a fee for allowing you to do business, it's called 'tribute money.' When the Mafia demands a fee for allowing you to do business, it's called 'the protection racket.' When the state demands a fee for allowing you to do business, it's called ‘sales tax’." - Jeff Daiell

"Taxation is far greater an evil than theft. It is a form of slavery. If you cannot choose the disposition of your property, you are a slave. If you must ask permission to work, and/or pay involuntary tribute to anyone from your wages, you are a slave. If you are not allowed to dispose of your life (another way of defining money, since it represents portions of your time and effort, which is what your life is composed of) in the time, manner and amount of your choosing, you are a slave." - Rick Tompkins

"The man who produces while others dispose of his product is a slave." - Ayn Rand

“We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.” - Winston Churchill

"Taxation without representation is tyranny." - James Otis

"Taxation WITH representation ain't so hot either." - Gerald Barzan

"Our forefathers made one mistake. What they should have fought for was representation without taxation." - Fletcher Knebel

"When a new source of taxation is found it never means, in practice, that the old source is abandoned. It merely means that the politicians have two ways of milking the taxpayer where they had one before."- HL Mencken

"What is the difference between a taxidermist and a tax collector? The taxidermist takes only your skin." - Mark Twain

"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." - Ronald Reagan

"Death and taxes are inevitable; at least death doesn't get worse every year." - Unknown

"When more of the people's sustenance is exacted through the form of taxation than is necessary to meet the just obligations of government and expenses of its economical administration, such exaction becomes ruthless extortion and a violation of the fundamental principles of free government."- former US President Grover Cleveland

"Rulers do not reduce taxes to be kind. Expediency and greed create high taxation, and normally it takes an impending catastrophe to bring it down." - Charles Adams

"The mounting burden of taxation not only undermines individual incentives to increased work and earnings, but in a score of ways discourages capital accumulation and distorts, unbalances, and shrinks production. Total real wealth and income is made smaller than it would otherwise be. On net balance there is more poverty rather than less."- Henry Hazlitt

"The poor of the world cannot be made rich by redistribution of wealth. Poverty can't be eliminated by punishing people who've escaped poverty, taking their money and giving it as a reward to people who have failed to escape."- PJ O'Rourke

"A government with the policy to rob Peter to pay Paul can be assured of the support of Paul." - George Bernard Shaw

"Freedom is the quality of being free from the control of regulators and tax collectors. If I want to be free their control, I must not impose controls on others." - Hans F. Sennholz

"There's only one way to kill capitalism--by taxes, taxes, and more taxes." - Karl Marx

"The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation."- Vladimir Lenin

"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." - PJ O'Rourke

"A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves."- Bertrand de Jouvenel

"The power to tax involves the power to destroy."- former US Supreme Court Justice John Marshall

"Taxes are not levied for the benefit of the taxed." - Robert Heinlein

"Taxes are the sinews of the state." - Cicero

"Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors, and miss."- Robert Heinlein

Tip Jar

In America, they tip. In NZ, we shout beer. If you like the service here at Not PC, drop a tip in the tip jar and you can do both.

Recent
Comments

I’m off!
Mr. Obama, Please Do Nothing
Sarah Palin will be a force to be reckoned with in the 2012 election. The New York Sun finds some similarities between her and young Margaret Thatcher. Mrs Palin also shares common qualities with Ronald Reagan's views.

#2) Palinism 2
What happened to small government, Mr English?
Unfortunately i don't believe that this lot are any better than the last crowd Keeping the state noses in everything just suits their purposeOn another note, Helen Clark is calling for "climate change" to be the forefront of development despite all of the evidence that it is a hoax.Will we never rid our selves of this woman?
Mark, excellent post.

Watch out for Redbaiter, he may spam your post, since he knows that Peter is away.
That 1.75m statistic is terrifying - every productive individual is carrying his own personal parasite!Can you point me to the source of these figures?
Stevew.

I originally got that statistic from one of Bernard Hickey's posts on http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog (Correction, it was either Hickey, or one of his guest posters.)

Note it appeared twice, first very early in 2009 (from memory) where it was reported as 1.85 million working to 1.75 million bureaucrats, beneficiaries, etc. Then it was reported much later in the year again, but as the 1 for 1 figure. Either way, it stands out doesn't it.

My problem is I cut and pasted the figure to my personal diary - because it was so memorable - but I did not copy the link with it. I've just tried searching the site, but the search function is not very refined and it came up with a load of posts I'd have to wade through unless I can figure out a better way to query it.

I've not got the time at the moment but if I get a chance soon I will.

Remember the tax system includes corporates, trusts, special partnerships, non-resident entities paying tax on NZ operations, etc, that all pay tax, thus it is not that 1 worker has to pay for 1 non worker, exactly, but the 1 for 1 figure, for me, sums up nicely part of NZ's problem (and all up, all taxation is nowhere near meeting the black hole of State expenditure, hence the public borrowing program).
By the way, from John Key's 'Keynotes' newsletter of Friday:

We’ll maintain Working For Families and compensate low to middle income earners if there is any increase in GST.

That sounds not so much like a 'step change' as a foot trip.

Let's see: GST up, benefits will be raised to cover the GST so whose paying the extra GST? Oh, of course, you and me. With the increase in ACC, the upcoming attack on property, the always increasing excise taxes, I'm thinking the income tax cut isn't going to mean lower tax overall for me.
Stevew

Here's more detail to my post above on source of that statistic. As I said, the first (of the two times) the statistic came up I copied to my personal diary, and as that is a Word document, it is much easier to search that document. After doing so I found where I posted the first (1.85 million) post. It was earlier than I said above, but tallies with my actual post in that this was before the actual recession started biting.

I copied the relevant portion of Hickey's post on 19 November, 2008. Here it goes:

[From 1999 to today] both local and central governments grew consistently and faster than the rest of the economy [as did] the number of people receiving benefits, Working for Families payments and/or working for local and central governments...This means that now we have 1.85 million people working and paying taxes to 1.75 million who receive benefits or work for the government. This near 1 to 1 ratio compares with a near 1.5 workers to 1 beneficiary in 1999.

Better still, when I copied and pasted that, Word has actually embedded the original link: here it is:

(Just copy and paste the url to your browswer, I can't me bothered making the clicky.)

Indeed, my diary has embedded two links (clever Mr Gates). The above post had it's own precedents in a post on interest.co.nz from October 25, 2008, made by David Chaston. Also worth looking at:

http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2008/10/25/benefit-claims-rising/
Thanks Mark. Of course, there are problems with the 1 to 1 comparison, but as a headline message it's very powerful. Any politician would certainly be happy to use it! (though only if it suited his agenda, of course, which is why we never hear it on the TV news).
Your statistics are bogus because they didn't include children who are neither wealth creators nor bludgers.

I think you need to go back to the start and rewrite the piece using actual facts rather than manipulted figures.

Someone who finished high school statistics can see you were way off.

Bad use of stats like that colours the whole rest of your artice. Sad.This comment has been removed by the author.
Oh dear. Sally said:

Your statistics are bogus because they didn't include children who are neither wealth creators nor bludgers.

Huh? I said the private sector is the only sector of the economy that creates wealth. Every forced appropriation and transfer from the private sector to the public sector destroys wealth, and of course, individual freedom.

Dispute that.

I said statistics show for every one person in the private sector working and paying tax, there is now in New Zealand one bureaucrat, beneficiary or retiree to match them, and this is an appalling stat.

I said above be careful of the one for one statistic regarding paying for the State, as other entities pay tax also, but our government is borrowing a quarter of a billion dollars per week, because the State is so huge, the tax take can't fund it anymore, and this doesn't water down the powerful symbolism of an out of control State (big S for slap) encapsulated in the one for one pairing. (The school children you speak of are in the statistic of the 4.13 million population that the tax take must support: I will speak to their plight, at the end of this post.)

It's irrefutable, but please, give the grounds for your refutation of it, and the correct statistic? Actually I would love for Dave Chaston to do an update of that eighteen month old statistic, after the last year that has seen another 52,000 jobs lost from the private sector (from memory) while the only sector in which employment grew was, you guessed it, the State. Nanny's minions. Reason would say it would be now even worse.

Sally then ended by saying:

Someone who finished high school statistics can see you were way off.

No. You have some problems with basic reading and comprehension. So, back to those poor school students you mentioned, I suggest you spend this Sunday pondering why our State education system has served you so badly. Per my original statement, transfers from the private to public sectors represents the destruction of wealth, and given the state of our education sector, this includes young minds.

Now that is the fact that is truly, as you said, sad.
Sally.......you just got ripped a new one!This comment has been removed by the author.
It's funny how you can work yourself up in to a frenzy over numbers when you can barely understand what they mean.

The ratio 1:1 for private workers supporting beuracrats ,beneficiaries and retirees is a joke.

Firstly, were there no public hospitals, schools or other government run services these would have to be supplied privately. So rather than being "SUPPORTED" by the private sector these people are merely taking the job of a private person. Which is not the same thing. Doctors are not considered to be bludging when they do work for both the private and public hospitals. They are just doing their jobs.

Secondly, By far the largest number in that group is Retirees who have paid into taxes on the EXPLICIT guarantee of superannuation. Much the same as a private super scheme is run. If you wanna cancel their benefits you gotta refund their taxes first. They are simply collecting their due on many years of payments made into their "retirement fund". If they were told there was to be no Govty super then they would have paid money into private plans instead and pushed for lower taxes.

Finally, You quote that 1.75 million support a population of 4.1 million. This is blatantly false because if the 1.75 excludes all those educators, policemen and doctors working for government-run organisations then they are also supporting the population because they pay taxes too and their jobs are productive also because their services would still needto be provided in a private economy anyway.

You have no grasp of statistics because you use them without any decent appreciation for the realities those numbers represent.

Sad.Finally, You quote that 1.75 million support a population of 4.1 million. This is blatantly false because if the 1.75 excludes all those educators, policemen and doctors working for government-run organisations then they are also supporting the population because they pay taxes too

As I said: utter incomprehension from you Sally.

Yes, employees of 'government-run organisations' have a tax nominally deducted, though only in a process that is a complete bureaucratic inefficiency. All these State groups you mention, where are their net wages paid from? The only sector of an economy that creates wealth, is the private sector, it is only the taxes from this sector that pays the State wage bill, benefits, etc. The whole kit an caboodle. The 'taxes' paid by civil servants and beneficiaries is just a money go round, ludicrous: society might as well try and diminish at least one transfer cost, and just pay them net of tax.

The government sector creates nothing that is not built on the taxes of the private sector (or borrowing). It's a black and white issue, there are no gray areas here.

So the one for one statistic is true, read the original source. And with that, it's now a week day, and I have to work, to pay the taxes to pay the state workers, beneficiaries and retirees.
Your assertion that only the private sector can create wealth is obviously false. It is a pity that you cannot comprehend such basic things.

Imagine a society in which there are no privae industries = socialism. Is any wealth created? Are any things produced? Does anybody eat do any people get treated in hospitals, get their cars fixed or go to a restaurant?

Actually the answer is yes. And since all these activities are what constitutes "Wealth" then it is entirely possible for government-run activities to create wealth.

So you are wrong.

Of course no-body is arguing that government-run activities are more efficient or effective than private ones but that was not your assertion. You simply stated that since it was run by government it creates no wealth. Which is obviously wrong.

You got bamboozled by your own statistics!Imagine a society in which there are no privae industries = socialism. Is any wealth created? Are any things produced? Does anybody eat do any people get treated in hospitals, get their cars fixed or go to a restaurant?

If you are talking about government control of property and the means of production (vis a vis Chavez, Castro, Mao, Stalin, et al), no, for a while they might be able to extract minerals inefficiently, or manufacture particularly awful cars, but over the long term they don't create wealth (indeed, without freedom and private property there is no wealth - see my final comments below), in the long term such systems have only proven efficient at enslaving, and often, murdering, their own populaces.

Of course no-body is arguing that government-run activities are more efficient or effective than private ones

To run the argument you are using, that's exactly what you are arguing. And if you're not arguing for that - and really, you're contradicting yourself for a the sake of a rationalism, which gets us nowhere - then you do recognise that the State does not create wealth - again, per my previous paragraph, you cannot have 'wealth' under such a State, because by definition for the State to own the means of production, you have to destroy the notion of private property and ownership, as Mr Chavez is doing - thus there are no individuals for 'wealth' to attach to.

So state you position clearly.

I assume from the line you are taking that you support the Nanny State interfering in peoples lives: yes?

That you support a planned/mixed economy, not a free one: yes? (Recognising, as Reagan pointed out, that all planned economies rely on planned (slave) societies).

If that is the case, then you are wasting your time on this thread. I do not want to be slave to a system as you - I have to assume - do.

You should be posting on Frogblog or those sites that advocate the sacrifice of the individual and freedom, on the bloodied barbaric altar of the common good.
Actually Mr Hubbard I support a free-market individual society. However I do not use bobus manipulated statistics to back it up.

If you are asserting that there is no wealth created by government-run activities you need to really go and re-do you education.

Just because the wealth (i.e. goods and services) are created by people under the control or influence of government does not mean that their actions are not valuable to all of us.

Doctors, educators and scientists who have been paid by government but have healed alot of sick people, educated thousands of people to degree level and discovered new processes and made inventions.

You are bogussly claiming that just because the person who pays their salary is no private that their work has absolutely no value to anyone? Because value to other people is what is the basis of wealth creation.

You are so so wrong and you still cannot see it. Sad.

You need to re-do 5th form economics and maths. And do English again while you are at it for good measure.
Do you seriously not understand the glaring central contradiction in your posts?

Hint:

Actually Mr Hubbard I support a free-market individual society.

And:

Doctors, educators and scientists who have been paid by government but have healed alot of sick people, educated thousands of people to degree level and discovered new processes and made inventions.

You don't believe in a free market because you don't know what one is. None of these functions you mention should be controlled by the State. The fact they are explains why we have a die while you wait state healthcare system, and our schools turn our illiterates. And why we are not a free country.

Get it.

If the State owns everything, runs everything, including health, education, the means of production, then the concept of wealth is a monomer. It has no meaning. You know only the freedom of the slave Sally.

And you very definitely do not advocate a free market, or any form of free society. None at all. Read your posts, then ask yourself what is your purpose in posting them.
Mr Hubbard. It seems you just evaded the issue without adressing the point that regardless of who controls the worker, they produce value and hence wealth when they make or do something that is valued in society.

Why cant you just accept that your use of statistics is poor and misleading. Because the fact is that 1.75 million people do not support the remainder of the population. It is 1.75 million + those who work under the control of the state.

I am not saying that they SHOULD be working for the state. But your accusation that none of their work has value in a free society is so false as to be laughable.

The fact that you cannot handle simple statistics does not automatically mean that someone who points out this sad fact to you is automatically. You let the libertarian team down in the same way the AGW scientists let their team down. You would be better to understand issues properly before just rolling out the numbers because the statements you put with them are bogus.... regardless of who controls the worker, they produce value and hence wealth ...

Pretty cold blooded stuff, isn't it. Is there any knowledge of 'living a free life' in that sentence. No. If the workers life is 'controlled' can they be said to produce wealth? How, they can't own that wealth.

Your thinking, as dangerous and shocking as it is given the death toll from totalitarianism over the 20th century, is I suspect prevalent amongst many who think they believe a free society (or even know what one would be). As I said, all our State school minions understand is the freedom of the slave. The more I argue the case of freedom, the more I come up with this contradictory nonsense. And your contradictions are huge Sally. Anyway, this thread allows me to understand, more, why I'll never see or live in a free society in my life time. It is why it is more likely I will see totalitarianism again instead, because tyrannies of the majority are sanctioning it all over again - if you don't believe me, look at Europe, the police state powers being granted the Inland Revenue in Greece, the increasing propensity of police to crack down brutally on all forms of protest, how across Europe and the US huge parts of the private sector have been nationalised on this financial crisis, just as Hayek said would happen in his Road to Serfdom ...

It is pointless carrying this argument on with you, whom, for the sake of pride, or some insane motivation I can't guess at, would argue yourself, and unfortunately me, into the Gulag (all over again) ...
No, actually one thing, for the record, given your continued effort to distort what I have said.

Quoting the man on Interest.co.nz who first stated the relevant statistic:

[From 1999 to today] both local and central governments grew consistently and faster than the rest of the economy [as did] the number of people receiving benefits, Working for Families payments and/or working for local and central governments...

This means that now we have 1.85 million people working and paying taxes to 1.75 million who receive benefits or work for the government. This near 1 to 1 ratio compares with a near 1.5 workers to 1 beneficiary in 1999.

See my relevant post.

Then, as rightfully qualified by me on this thread:

"Remember the tax system includes corporates, trusts, special partnerships, non-resident entities paying tax on NZ operations, etc, that all pay tax, thus it is not that 1 worker has to pay for 1 non worker, exactly."

[You've never acknowledged this Sally, as it doesn't fit your 'advocacy of slavery' agenda.]

But then the point I was making, and that in your yearning to support the Nanny State, you have refused any comprehension of:

"I said above be careful of the one for one statistic regarding paying for the State, as other entities pay tax also, but our government is borrowing a quarter of a billion dollars per week, because the State is so huge, the tax take can't fund it anymore, and this doesn't water down the powerful symbolism of an out of control State encapsulated in the one for one pairing."

But then, per my post directly above, this is all by the by now. The chilling issues shown on this thread, as much as that statistic, is the mindset your posts are written from, in your inability to grasp that for 'wealth' to have meaning, the individual must be free, must own their life.
By your logic Mr Hubbard all the slaves that tilled the fields and made free white men rich did not create a single bit of wealth for their masters since they were not working as free men.

Were government health and education passed back to the private sector (which I advocate) are you saying that more private teachers and doctors would not have to be employed? You are crazy of course they would have to be. The reason is because they would be needed to work (i.e. create value in exchange for a salary) to replace the value that was previously created by those in the public sector.

You are saying that a public operation is not valuable because we are forced to pay for them. Sorry but you are wrong because if people did not value the service given by hospitals they would not go there. But plenty of taxpayers attend hospitals - this would be sort of against your theory of public hospital providing no value to the community.

it is like someone saying that a government ownsed and run airline cannot provide a service that people want. Well, Air New Zealand competes in a free market and no-one is forced to use it but many people do who neither pay taxes in New Zealand nor live here. Are you saying those people who buy services from NZ Schools, hospitals and other government run businesses in the open market are acting against their own best interests?

Or could it be that you are actually wrong and that despite your illogical attempts to argue otherwise, even government-run businesses can create value and wealth in a community.

I agree that they cannot do so as well as private ones...but that is not what you said. You said they create none...which is patently false.

Your logic is undeniably false and you cannot accept it.

Sad.By your logic Mr Hubbard all the slaves that tilled the fields and made free white men rich did not create a single bit of wealth for their masters since they were not working as free men.

No Sally , their masters (like our government officials today) got plenty rich. But did they (the slaves) create any wealth for themselves?

I am not interested in creating wealth for others, as I do not want others to create it for me, I want to create it for myself, and keep the proceeds.

I am not interested in creating "Wealth for the community" as you so euphemistically put it.
Spot on Dolf.

Sally has such a bad grasp of logic and drawing reasoned conclusions on reasoned analysis that I'm thinking she must be a school teacher in the State school system, or a student.

But yes, if there is no possibility of ownership, you cannot own your life or the product of your efforts, then, Sally, you have created no wealth that you can lose, and thus no wealth. That's the problem with living under tyranny.

I mean really, read and think of the rubbish you are arguing woman.

Bloody hell.
Sally, it seems that according to your logic, if someone robbed your neighbour's home and gave the money to the local hospital, wealth would've been created.

Wealth is only created when free men exchange goods and services with one another, because otherwise they wouldn't have made the transaction. Both parties must believe that they're better off having made the transaction. Resources aren't infinite, and wealth isn't created out of thin air; there is always some sort of trade-off involved.

RE the slaves comment: Frederic Bastiat talked about the seen and the unseen. Perhaps you should consider the wealth that was never created as a result of slavery. It far outweighs any wealth that was, and everyone - including slaveowners - were far poorer as a result.
Sorry Callum but your logic is faulty. Actually your exam,ple is only the same as mine if the person who robbed the money actually applied labour or capital and produced some additional product.

You are focussed on the fact that the people who are working are being paid with money yhat was forcibly taken from others. Of course this is not right or just however just because the buyer was forced to pay that does not mean that the worker did not actually make something.

No-one can deny that USA is a wealthier country than Ethiopia. But neither country is truly free. However the USa obviously has much more material wealth in terms of infrastructure, living standards etc. SOME of those things have been provided under government-run organisations using "stolen" money BUT you still include them as part of USA's wealth.

You seem to have a mental block when it comes to separating wealth (which is measured in terms of material living standards) versus free exchange. These two concepts are mutually exclusive and wealth can be created by someone who is working for government because the outcome of their work has a value EVEN in a free society.

So the statistics are bogus because much of the wealth of NZ is produced by government workers and these were not included in the stat.

Back to Stats 101 for you.This comment has been removed by the author.
Sally, you're still missing the point.

Wealth is finite - therefore, everyone has to use it in the way that they believe best suits their needs and desires. So the public sector only creates wealth insofar as people would pay for its services without them being subsidized by the taxpayer.

All other money taken from the taxpayer, represents lost wealth, because the taxpayers would've used it in a way that benefited them more than if it went into the public sector.

"You seem to have a mental block when it comes to separating wealth (which is measured in terms of material living standards) versus free exchange."

Actually, the idea of wealth rests entirely on mutual exchange. Wealth is only wealth when people want it.

If I spend one trillion dollars building a private city with state-of-the-art transport and communications systems and no one buys into it, I have not created wealth. I have lost one trillion dollars (and that's just the beginning).

But according to you, I've created wealth. In fact, according to your logic, just the existence of new resources means I've created wealth.
Sorry Callum, that is why I specifically used examples of where our publicly provided services are currently being purhcased on the open market.

If you think that people would not be prepared anything for the education, health and transport services provided by government-run organisations. No-one is claiming that they are doing a better job than private firms would but you would be a fool to say that no-one would be willing to pay for our university education or healthcare because overses people currently are so they DO get value.

The analogy of a city in the middle of no-where is a good example of zero wealth or value. You have proved my point exactly. The fact is that the services provided with taxpayer money is valued by people as evidenced every day. Maybe you think we lose money by funding them and there are better ways but that still does not mean that SOME value is created.

Mr Hubbard contends that the health, education and transport and infrastructure services provided with taxpayer dollars are as useful as a city in the middle of nowhere that not one person would pay $1 for. That is obviously false."Sorry Callum, that is why I specifically used examples of where our publicly provided services are currently being purhcased on the open market."

They purchase government services because you don't have to pay twice for them. If full price had to be paid, I doubt many people would choose government over private services.

"The fact is that the services provided with taxpayer money is valued by people as evidenced every day. Maybe you think we lose money by funding them and there are better ways but that still does not mean that SOME value is created."

Certainly, Sally, some value is created. But far more value is destroyed for the reasons posted on the above post; thus, the net effect is negative. That's what I'm saying.

Even if service was of a high quality, that would have no import on the fact that more wealth is destroyed than created due to the expropriation of taxes. Indeed, if government services were of a high quality, why would they need to be funded from taxes? Wouldn't people be willing to pay full price?
I agree with you Callum. You make good sense. Government run services do destroy value. On that point I agree.

But to say that only those in private emplyment support all those who work for the government is simply not true. Because Were none of those services run by government then those who now work for the taxpayer would perform similar funtions in private emplyment (eg in schools, hospitals transport companies etc) so the number of 1.75million supporting the rest of the country is misleading.

That is what Mr Hubbard doesn't understand. He is dangerous with statistics in hand.
Callum, you are fighting the noble fight well, but did you read this post:

http://pc.blogspot.com/2010/02/reason-is-not-automatic.html

And as NZ's youngest freedom fighter, let me counsel you to be wise, when it comes time, in marriage: some woman are daft as ;)
It seems that Mr Hubbard has sadly shown his true colours.
Yes, 'F' for freedom Sally. That's my colour. Don't ever excuse tyranny or slavery as you have.

And you still have never read my posts.

Your second to last post:

so the number of 1.75million supporting the rest of the country is misleading.

I've dealt with this over and over, why don't you get it? Why can't you get it? For example, read my comment at 2/15/2010 05:07:00 PM.

I've never argued with someone so obstinately dumb as you have argued on this thread. Try reading what people write.

The end.
Directly quoting from your OP:

"Put another way, there were 1.75 million private sector wealth creators having to carry a population of 4.13 million."

Which as has been clearly explained to you is patently false due to the fact that if no government health, education or transport existed then those who now work for the taxpayer would perform similar functions in private employment. So those 1.75 million are not "Carrying the 4 million as you put it. It is more like 1.75 + those who work for valued government services.

You have no grasp of statistics.
Read my comment at 2/15/2010 05:07:00 PM! And my posts before that in the thread.

There is nothing wrong with pride, Sally, unless it's misplaced.
Yes Mr Hubbard. You should heed your own words and own your mistakes instead of making a mess of them.
Friday morning ramble
I told you Norris was a weasel...
re: Peter Garrett: Rocker for truth, justice & a better world is on the brink of a fall over championing that most pressing of causes, home insulation!! Dee Oilz! Power, Passion and Pink Batts for the people! (And he's killed more than Oz lost in five years in Afghanistan. It's tough out there in the home insulation trenches.)
The Moviemento Libertario Party in Costa Rica was running on an "get tough on crime" and drug prohibition platform as well as promising a free computer for every primary school student. It is the goodies that count.
I have just been reading a review of a new book on the history of slavery. I am quite sure that kids in our schools believe the Anglo/Americans invented slavery whereas they were actually the first to make it illegal.Slavery never took root (or survived) in England and northern Europe as much as elsewhere because the Anglo Christians in particular had a strong sense of the nature of rights in property and did not feel comfortable with extending those rights to ownership of other Christians. For a while they joined in the New Americas bonanza by enslaving heretics and non believers only.But only 5% of the slaves who crossed the Atlantic ended up in North America.Anyhow, the dilemma the English faced in making slavery illegal was that they recognized the property rights of the slave owners.So the UK government actually paid 20 million pounds to UK slaveowners in compensation for their lost property rights. The American government refused to compensate and this was one major reason for the Civil war that almost destroyed the Union.Interesting history given that our Government would not compensate for loss of property rights in telecom - let alone in private land taken for the public good. And there is no mention of compensation in the Auckland Governance (Law reform) Bill even though it says the Auckland Spatial Plan must protect significant ecological areas.
“The Sky Above” - David Knowles
“Taxi!”
So if you are a Taxi driver in Ashburton where the crime rate is zero you need protection from someone from south auckland ? Joyce who I had high hopes for decides that legislation will stop you being a victim of crime. How f....ing stupid. If they dont make a stand and say look after yourself and stop looking at government for solutions NZ might as well have re-elected Klark.
This cock-head Joyce is a cunning motherfucker just like his boss Jonkey. They're really socialist cunts. All of them in the Labor-lite party.
A homeopathic overdose
Rather like the iridologists who couldn't identify the chronic diabetics in a series (medical students could.)
I have been a subscriber to Vicky Hyde's newsletter for years and they're doing a pretty good job there, the NZ Skeptics society.

A few years ago, I asked her permission to republish some contents from one of her newsletter which she hit out at psychics and homeopaths and she agreed to my request. I wrote about half a page of my own opinion on mystic practices (numerology, psychic ability, homeopath, etc...) from why it is bollocks based on Physics. This half a page was used as an add-on to Vicki's main points in her newsletter as a new article in itself with 2 co-authors.

The final article which comprised of 2 parts, the first top half was lifted from Vicki's newsletter directly and the second half was my own opinion. The article was sent to PC for proof reading and make some (grammatical) corrections (because he is an excellent editor) and the a copy of the proofed article, was then sent to Vicki to make a final comment before it was submitted to the NZ Herald & Scoop for possible publication, because at the time, the NZ media were fascinated and infatuated with celebrity local psychics such as Jeanette Wilson and others. Vicki replied that the article was perfect in that she doesn't think of anything to add or delete. So, it was sent to both NZ Herald & Scoop but didn't make it for publication.

Our rejected article would have been a good counter to the media fascination on mysticism at the time (4 years or so ago), because there were Herald articles , radio interviews, TV interviews with Jeanette Wilson and others, but opinions from Skeptics were neglected. Example was Vicki got invited to the making of one of the episode of Wilson's "Dare To Believe" TV3 series. Her appearance on the final version of that episode when it went to air was reduced to just less than 2 minutes, of her being interviewed. I believed that it was heavily edited by TV3 so as not to make the show looked dodgy, because they were marketing it heavily (similar to marketing efforts that went into promotion of TV2 Sensing Murder). If Vicki’s opinion (the full duration of her interview) is to be shown in its entirety, then perhaps advertisers wouldn’t have been keen to advertise during "Dare To Believe" commercial break and there was no doubt about why it was heavily edited.

The article that I co-wrote was an excellent one, because we covered as wide from a philosophical & also scientific point of view (eg - Feynman quotes on cult-science was included also PC added Ayn Rand comment about the burden of proof rested on the claimer) of why these practices are bollocks.

PC, I think that it will be a good guest post if you still have a copy of the (proofed) article somewhere in your archive (if you wish), because I am not sure whether I have any copy of it at all. This is my 3rd machine that I have bought since when the article was written and it is not in my machine now. I may check out my 2 other old machines.
About 3 years ago, I challenged the President of the NZ Homeopathy Society (and his members) for a public debate with me on the scientific validity of homeopathic treatments in which he declined. He instead sent me a whole lot of homeopathy pamphlets to read about the scientific methods being used in their practice, which were all nonsense (all of them).

I thought I was reading some 5 year old articles. They were all laughable, especially, the claim that water has memory, which I told him in our correspondence that to have such capability, it means that one of those established statistical mechanical laws must be violated.

I described to him in brief about particle indistinguishability from quantum statistics (bosons & fermions) – ie, when particles in an ensemble diffuse around in a container which they’re confined to, they left no footprint at all behind at their old locations. This means that if some new particles that diffuse in to displace them (ie, the previous particles) from some specific locations, those new arrived particles at those locations cannot in anyway sense which particle/s in the whole ensemble that were at those locations previously in which they are now being (temporarily) occupied by new ones. In general, it means that if a single particle collides with another particle at a particular time instant (say, 2 seconds ago), then the next particle that it encountered via diffusion and collided with in the next time instant (say, 1 second ago), this particle has no knowledge if the one that it collided with 2 secs ago is the same one or not that it just collided with about a sec ago, because of quantum statistics particle indistinguishability law. So, the idea of water memory that is claimed by homeopathy is central to its claim of medicinal power is completely bollocks and must be dismissed, no ifs no buts. There shouldn’t be an open mind about it.

The homeopath lady that was interviewed on Close-Up claimed that the homeopathic cure has something to do with electro-magnetic. Water molecules have slight dipole moments and again electrical dipole or not, they (H2O) must obey quantum statistics particle indistinguishability law, ie, the dipole from this H2O molecule must be indistinguishable from the dipole moment of the next H2O molecule, therefore there is no room for memory at all in the whole ensemble. But thing is, homeopaths primarily rest their claims mainly on mysticism and blind faith.
Fitzsimons’ Values Party: They won the nuclear war!
So a list of the ideas the National Party brought to Parliament would be:- Confront the trade union movement.

That is all.

NOTHING else is new, everything else Labour conceived of or implemented first. Before Muldoon the Nats did nothing other than confront the watersiders in 1951. With Muldoon the Nats simply took socialism a leap forward. With Bolger the Nats did a bit more of what Douglas had done, then put the brakes on till it came to a virtual halt. Now it is leave what Clark did pretty much intact.

Because the Greens are about ideas they are more interesting than all of the others, more engaging and more dangerous - and they know it.
Peter,

A possible reason for the "victory" is that some of those are really good ideas.

The underlying philosophy is terrible, but Open government, freedom of info, gay and female equality etc. are good.

I think, given your closing sentence, that this should be the focus of an Ideas party (by which we both mean the libz). Sure the Underlying philosophy is there, and should be named in honesty. But focus on the ideas, and begin with the popular ones.

This to me is where the libz message gets scrambled. You have to buy the whole shebang, by buying the philosophy (which I do), before any of the ideas are championed.

When speaking to friends that are anti-libz, we should try to focus the message on Ideas they can buy into (like lower taxes), and gradually they may or may not accept the underlying philosophy.

Case in point: a lot of people voting for the greens honestly do not understand the philosophy of the party, but they like the Idea of no mining in the coromandel and they find whales cute.
"Tripping over their sandals, banging their head on their wind chimes, reeking of patchouli and clad in the inevitable tie-died macrame, they hardly appeared a threat to anyone"

I would say most ended up working for NIWA
The post prompts an interesting - and crucial - question: why are only the bad ideas winning?

Classical liberalism has been around for over two centuries, libertarianism (in one form or another) for over 50. Yet, we continue to slide in the wrong direction with only just now (in the U.S.) some hackles being raised (to what long-term effect it isn't yet clear).

It's very puzzling - and critically important to understand - why and how the general population decides to accept some ideas and not others.

So far as I know, no one (including me) has the first clue why this is.
"So far as I know, no one (including me) has the first clue why this is."

STOCHASTIC EVOLUTION
@Jeff

It is a combination of things.

Add Churchill's comment about how a lie gets half way around the world before the truth gets its pants on to the fact that propaganda works best when based on already popular beliefs (be they mis-conceptions or no) and the conditions naturally exist for bad ideas to go viral. This is made all the worse by politicians who can not see beyond their own electoral success and prepared to say anything to get into power.
'Brick Country House' - Mies van der Rohe, 1923
I almost died when I saw you namechecking Malevich! A fine house indeed, this one.

before the election " National is not going to be raising GST. National wants to cut taxes, not raise taxes "

that 2008 question may have been framed in terms of addressing the deficit, but today, Key has misrepresented what he claimed his 2008 words were.
He answered a specific question about the deficit and like it or not IF he raises GST he will provide tax cuts. Its a good idea as all those tourists will pay for 30% of our income tax cuts. Quite brilliant really. Prefer to see him abolish 30% of government departments but it will take a while for NZers to catch up.
Jonkey is immitating Obama in trying to be a people's person and at the same time screwing those same people with his cunningness. Pathetic.
The last time I saw the word "modest" used in a government line about taxes was 1999, when the full page Herald ad posted by the newly elected Labour regime announced "a modest 6% rise in income tax."

And no, Peter, I'm not feeling particularly proud of the fact that I helped these plonkers into power.

The only mitigating factor may be that, according to today's Herald report, those earning 90k will have a net return of about $50 a week. On that score I suppose higher earners are going to be better off under the National Socialists, provided of course, the modest return of *their* money isn't eaten up by his comrades, like his seemingly unsatiated and hollow-legged Minister of Transport.
Key was very blunt when he promised no GST rise. There was no caveat. NZers need to tell him he is a lying cunt and that they are not gullible morons.
先告訴自己希望成為什麼樣的人，然後一步一步實踐必要的步驟。........................................
There is something hilarious about Peter Cresswell running ads that support Al Gore
@Phil: I must confess, I had a wee smile when I pressed 'publish.' :-)
This government, this Prime Minister, the National Party, and all those who defend any of them, are a disgrace.

The Prime Minister clearly breaks a promise and he (and his supporters) have not the integrity to acknowledge that a breach of their word took place. Somehow, to me, it is worse that they reject that they have even broken an election promise with the PM's lying in parliament yesterday trying to use semantic arguments. They are not to be trusted.

Labour are, of course, no different.

And these are the people that most New Zealanders vote for to tell us what we can and cannot do. Who is responsible for this disgrace? Just look in the mirror!

Julian
If Key just said, "look I was wrong, I want to raise GST to pay for cuts to income tax, it's my policy for the 2011 election" then he could recover some respect. After all, the Nats promised cast iron to privatise nothing during this term, so what's the difference?

Nothing - it's not politics being brought into disrepute, it is the reputation of politics as a career of deception being maintained.
Heres a suggestion, drop the top tax rate and company/trust rate to 20%, make the first $50k tax free, slash compliance costs for business, cut Government spending drastically, then there will be more than enough money going through the economy.Get out of the way of entrepreneurs and let them prosper.Michael
The Corpseman-in-Chief [updated]
What is with attacking Obama for reading off a teleprompter, it's not relevant to anything that matters.
Sarah Palin is talking like a libertarian (er! like a Peter Creswell). I would say, that she talked like a libertarian in about 70% of the issues that a true libertarians like Mr. Creswell truly believes or advocates for.

I've read about all the issues of what Mrs Palin had said in her speech right here on Not PC blog. Umm, it makes me wondered if she is a regular reader of this blog or her advisers have been.

Palin for president.
I don't usually respond to Redbaiter for obvious reasons, but he simply could not be more wrong. The fact that large numbers of Americans are now acutely aware of the extent to which government controls their lives, and want to do something about it is actually one of libertarianism's greatest successes.

The ideological battle has been won. Now for the political battle.
Make your own news
"Dowdy kitchen man". Heheh
Charlie Brooker is hillarious.

He's got a great column in the Guardian and heaps of other stuff on Youtube etc.
Did somebody say something? [with ongoing updates]
Fisking that “step change” [update 4]
Very funny that the "tax is the price we pay for civilisation" was actually brought up in parliament.

I don't think Key made many friends today. The cheerleaders will have a hard time.
Got me thinking of 3 words:

Sing A Pore.
“New Zealand, we are in crisis. As a nation we are rumbling down the path of economic doom. We are spending and planning to spend so much of your money on sustaining our 2nd world status that to do nothing would be immoral.

A land of such potential.Forget Australia – we could be the Switzerland of the Pacific.

We are cutting huge swathes into the lumbering unproductive behemoth that are New Zealand state services.We are offering you the option of deciding which state services you wish to pay for – and – receive. Subsequently, they will right-size, offering real competition and choice.

We believe you are best placed to make decisions on how to spend your money.

After all – it is your money.”

John KeyForget Australia – we could be the Switzerland of the Pacific.

Yeah right.

We are offering you the option of deciding which state services you wish to pay for – and – receive.

IDIOT IDIOT IDIOT.

It is really very simple:

As of now there is zero corporate tax and zero fbt.As of now GST is 20% - it will be reduced when we are regularly producing 10Bn surpluses per year, not until thenAs of now we have a flat 30% income tax on the first 30,000, then zero% tax thereafter. Nobody pays more than $10,000 income tax ever.As of now there are no benefits whatsoever - dole dpb super invalids wff all the restAs of now all state hospitals schools polytechs wanagna universities airnz kiwirail nzpost are closed,As of now any remaining civil servants have a 30% pay cut.

As of now, the next election is in 2020. The Maori seats are gone. Only those with personal incomes over 250,000 may vote.

That's how you do it.
The day that hope died in NZ. Labour suck, we know that. National suck too, but I always had this tiny hope in the back of my mind that they might do some things right. Key's response to the smacking referendum pretty much killed that, and now this pathetic, do nothing "plan" has nailed the coffin shut. NZ is on a downhill slide that we won't escape until the taxpayers revolt and stop handing over their hard-earned to the bozos in the Beehive.
There aren't anywhere near enough taxpayers left Sam...
He shouldn't have wasted his time.

National is truly back to form, the conservative do-nothing tinker party.

Unless voters demand it, the next serious chance for uplifting New Zealand will come with the next serious economic crisis. That wont be for another generation.

There will be ever increasing government waste from picking losers, mediocre centrally planned and provided education and healthcare, a continued growing underclass of hopelessness and a largely low value commodity based economy struggling to get market access to a world that ignores it.

Not enough to encourage me to return to the highly taxed, low value currency backwater when there are opportunities in the US and Europe.

There is nothing in this to remotely encourage me to return.
Scott, you can't tell me that the UK, Europe or US are any better. It is true that the Nats are a useless inert bunch of cowardly fibbers. It is also true that the vast majority of those of us that know that continued tax and spend policies are disgusting will also uselessly and inertly just roll over and suck it up or go overseas and roll over and suck up other disgusting policies over there. Sooner or later we have to stand up and fight. Actions speak louder than winging.

At least the US has a Tea Party movement. We do not have such a tradition here in New Zealand so that form of protest would perhaps not resonate here. So if you are ready to not behave like useless inert cowardly Nats (and ACT who support them), what form would your protest take? The first thing you can do is come up with ideas please. We need actions to illustrate and educate and a slogan or name for a movement that would resonate within the Kiwi culture. Then we need to get off our buts and out into the streets. All it would take to frighten those vote hungry Nats is a bit of very loud noise if we can get a decent number of people to make that noise. Come on think but remember just thinking and talking will not be enough to change anything.
Sally said...Sooner or later we have to stand up and fight. Actions speak louder than winging.

Sally good comment and also I am just curious Sally, who's WE that you refer to here?

Do you mean for objectivists only or you mean to be inclusive of those who don't like coercion from the government regardless whether those people are:

The WE that you referred to, must include those that hold anti-state coercion and not objectivist club only. You need people, because it is people that drive the changes. A good idea with no people to spread the message is useless.

See, I am no objectivist (I agree with some of it), but that doesn't mean that I can't be included in that WE, that you referred to above.
Oh no! Falafulu Fisi I would hate to give that impression. We must gather in EVERYONE who is sick of, or should be sick of, carrying the burden. That's the key - depicting working people of all cultures who can no longer carry the burden. Not easy.
What made you think you couldn't be "we", FF? Did Sally imply it was for objectivists only?

Note I've used lower case "o" in objectivists. I think Objectivism is excellent. How can one argue with a philosophy which doesn't espouse anything except "let reality shape reason, and reason dictate action"? It's not a cult, or a set of contradictory beliefs like religion, it's just a term defining a mode of thought and action based on objective reality. I'd like to say "I'm an objectivist", but I don't want to ascribe negative, cultish, or groupthink connotations to myself by doing so. Also, as Peter has commented (though I'm paraphrasing) here before, although the concept of objectivism is extremely simple, the implications are vast and integrating them "perfectly" can take years. I'm certainly not there yet. Complexity of implementation and integration aside, what's not to like? What is there to disagree with? :)

Note: I nearly deleted everything after my initial question to FF, as it's not really relevant to this question. Sod it though. Let the ramble stand. People can correct or discuss as they like or not. I think it's important (as I think does FF) for all who love freedom to stand together on this, and I'd hate a philosophical label to divide us.
@Falafulu Fisi

I think everyone is welcome - as I have said previously I am not an objectivist just as many other Libz are not either.
Facebook members join this group and spread the word.http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=wall&gid=27983934569
Sally, the difference between NZ and the UK/US is that the range of opportunities over here is so much better. Nanny State is on a grander scale in the UK, but for all of that I can earn a currency which has a far higher value, am a stone's throw away from dozens of interesting places, have a huge variety of work and it isn't that much harder to set up business in the UK or US than in NZ.

For NZ to attract the people it should want, it needs to be low tax so that the much lower incomes, low value currency and the comparative dearth of variety (and high cost of imports) are offset by keeping more of your money, and feeling less hamstrung by bureaucracy. What it remains is an agriculture and tourism based low value economy, which costs NZ in not being able to meet expectations for health care, high value imports and the like.

It has stagnated, and is begging for market access to the US and China to keep the treadmill running. It could be a fleet of foot innovative little corner of the world that attracts Aussies tired of its productive sluggishness, it's not.

I think NZ perhaps needs a movement, driven by Libz but not Libz itself, which is about less government. Some basic goals about shrinking the state to less than 15% of GDP, low flat tax, no new taxes, etc.
I agree Scott. I saw this potential movement as a stand alone thing to be able to gain wide appeal. I am picturing street theatre events rolling out across the country. People come dressed in their work clothes, carrying some sort of heavy load on their shoulders and looking exhausted. We would have scrolls listing the 400 plus govt departments and quangos and onlookers could be asked to participate in a poll voting on which can have reduced budget and which ones could be cut altogether. The message being that the govt. cant tell us that govt. spending can't be cut. The results could be summed up into a petition to parliament. Also reminding people that this govt. promised tax cuts as is well illustrated here in some NotPC posts. I can set up a separate website with all this material gathered together. What do you all think?
Some quotable quotes for “Tax Reform” Day